Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 15 February 2010 (→User:Jaredkunz30 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action): cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Sourside21 reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sourside21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

Version reverted to: 07:34 10 February 2010, user made the same edit at 07:17 8 February 2010 and 15:15 9 February 2010 but made no attempt to discuss the edits when reverted.

• 1st revert: 00:34, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "It wasn't even there until I added it on professional wrestling. Please take away your bias, even if you're a WWE fan, and recognize that WWE is recognized as professional wrestling.")
• 2nd revert: 01:20, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "No, I didn't think it was a big deal until you overreacted. Please take your "DUN DUN DUN" elsewhere, until you are ready to take this article seriously.")
• 3rd revert: 01:28, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "I agree. Let's keep the status quo until you address your problems with the WWE documentary's and TIME magazine's information. and no DUN DUN DUN, please.")
• 4th revert: 01:54, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "Undoing because it was not a cleanup. Please direct any criticisms you have to WT:PW.")
• 5th revert: 02:13, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "I'm not sure I approve of the sock puppetry, or in this case, meat puppetry, but I suppose it's something to consider. Nevertheless, criticism sections are generally not a good idea.")
• 6th revert: 02:20, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "...what? What does your comment have to do with deleting a whole paragraph?")
• Warning diff: 02:24 February 12, 2010
• 7th revert: 02:25, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "You must be talking to the wrong user. The user who wanted a criticism section was Wrestlinglover. I just wanted a small paragraph to address what's in mainstream coverage of WWE.")

(user • talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: All reverts were on the 11th, the warning came after that on the 12th. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• The warning actually came one minute before the 7th (or 6th) revert, Sourside also went back 15 minutes after the 02:25 revert. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

At 1:34 12 February 3bulletproof13 attempted to discuss the matter. Sourside blanked the page and reverted the article. Sourside was warned about edit warring at 01:00 10 February 2010 for the page OnLive, it's clear he knew long before the 7th revert what he was doing. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since the user has been blocked for 3RR before there is no excuse for ignorance so 48 hours. Spartaz 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hadn't seen the block log. A previous block means that Sourside has definitely received prior warnings, so I fully agree with a block. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Collectonian reported by User:174.3.98.236 (Result: No violation)

Page: Misplaced Pages:When to use tables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first three of those edits by Collectonian are in sequence so only count collectively as one edit. Many editors going back to November have reverted the edits by the anon:

Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No violation. Stop edit warring over a guideline. It's about as indefensible as it gets. Go and follow dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This was a version that was not even edited by me. And this version was made after the rfc expired. So:

• I did elicit comment.
• You are reverting (mind you, at least) an edit that was not only agreed on by consensus, but was not selfwritten.
• Protecting this page for 10 days... shorter than when I left BOTH requests for comments up, before I made an edit. If I need only 10 days to wait, then why was I blocked, and why was this blocked?174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Kriswarner reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24h)

Page: Center for Economic and Policy Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kriswarner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Section has been blanked five times.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See Talk:Kriswarner for COI, see also Mark Weisbrot and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp.

• I can't help but note the simple fact that there is a major 3RR vio here, and that it should be resolved asap. It also appears to be part of a larger agenda that I'm not prepared to comment on. Jusdafax 21:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours An editor has pointed out a possible COI at Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research. Though someone connected with the Center might claim BLP in removing certain things, the section they are removing is very well-sourced. You don't get to remove things simply because you disagree with a reliable source like the New York Times. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Z Victor Alpha reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: Sock blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Z Victor Alpha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 20:37, 12 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343597891 by Mean as custard (talk). I worked hard to neutralize the article, see reasons on TALK thanks Custard")
2. 20:55, 12 February 2010 (edit summary: "WHY ARE YOU REVERTING???? CAN you just point out your unfavored parts. Better still, USE THE DISCUSSION AS I DID")
3. 21:01, 12 February 2010 (edit summary: "Go to the talk - NOW")
4. 21:08, 12 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343608580 by Uncle Dick (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Uncle Dick (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Sock blocked. See next report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Z Victor Alpha reported by User:Tadija (Result: Sock blocked )

Page: List of war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Z Victor Alpha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Account was created today, and after my warning, he wrote this . User is well aware what sockpuppet is, and he is asking for my block. Same as Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) did, with his puppets. Also, User finishes sentences with phrase GOODBYE , also same as Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs). Some of the other editors agree also. . Sock, who breached 3RR. --Tadija (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

EDIT:

Neutral Solution 100 (talk · contribs) = Z Victor Alpha (talk · contribs) = Warcrimesexpert (talk · contribs)

--Tadija (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I had independently found that Neutral Solution 100 and Z Victor Alpha were both extremely obstructive accounts, and also both clearly a sock/master pair. I had not noticed Warcrimesexpert, but, looking now at the respective edit histories, it is clear that this is another sock. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Z Victor Alpha All socks has been blocked --Tadija (talk)

User:Tao2911 reported by User:David Starr 1 (Result: Declined)

Page: Adi Da (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tao2911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

<Not sure on the last one because it appears that Tao2911 is trying to defeat the system. This user is trying to own the article and prevent others from editing.>

• Result - Declined. I don't count four reverts here, and there are many editors working. It is far from a two-person war, and the talk page issues are complex. You might have more luck opening a complaint at WP:NPOVN, or if it's an issue of sourcing, you could try WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:125.237.33.169 reported by XLerate (talk) (Result: semi-protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fairfield College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.237.33.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 21:12, 12 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342979649 by Gadfium (talk)")
2. 22:33, 12 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343618441 by XLerate (talk)")
3. 01:57, 13 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343629792 by JamieS93 (talk)Quoted in Misplaced Pages"Commissioner for Rodney College!!"ey")

• Diff of warning: here

—XLerate (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protected by Gadfium (talk · contribs). JamieS93 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:GiannaManiego reported by User:LedgendGamer (Result: Page protected)

Page: Loren Legarda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: GiannaManiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• I provided the diffs in reverse order because it really doesn't make a difference. Look at the history of the page. I would have caught on earlier if I hadn't been watching the Vancouver 2010 opening ceremony. —LedgendGamer 08:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Okay, some comments. First, I'm a completely uninvolved editor. I noticed the edit war, warned both users, and came here (as promised) when they resumed. This form seems to be optimized for reporting one editor, so I reported the one that seems to be the more agressive in reverting, also by taking into account the fact that User:HoppingHare attempted to start a talk page thread. This is clearly a war between two equally involved editors, so note that this report is also reporting HoppingHare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —LedgendGamer 08:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Page has been protected for five days, as it's been at least that long since a significant edit was made unrelated to this edit war. And also in the hopes that the two edit warriors will at least try to resolve the dispute on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Je suis tres fatigue (Result: Warned)

Page: Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Je suis tres fatigue (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I opened a discussion before s/he appeared in the article. I also left messages to his/her talk page and asked him/her to join the discussion.

However, s/he never replied to me and kept reveting the page without joining discussion. I tried to achieve a compromise and asked him/her several times to talk to me over the matter. But s/he never answered me and showed any efforts to avoid edit warring.

Kuebie has no intention to avoid edit warring. It seems Kuebie has blocked for this reason 4 times. 24-hour block will not be enough for him/her.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note Je suis tres fatigue (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion after he got blocked for the disruption to the said article, and tried to block his opponents to AIV. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich#Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Not directly from this, but I've blocked Je suis tres fatigue (talk · contribs) indef after an incident involving a retaliatory bad-faith AIV that led me to block two users I have subsequently unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

--Caspian blue 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Kuebie is warned against continuing to restore his point of view in this article until it is supported by others. Any further reverts which are not supported by a Talk page consensus may produce an immediate block. I've no objection to Daniel Case's block of User:Je suis tres fatigue, who appears to be a sock. Ironically, Je suis tres fatigue's version of this article was more neutral and balanced than the one which Kuebie has been fighting to restore. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Warned)

Page: Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Multiple different edits, will break down below

• 1st revert: rv of this; also the next consecutive edit (part of this 1st revert) is this, where Drork replaces "destroyed" with "ruined" as he had previously reverted here
• 2nd revert: revert of this
• 3rd revert: same as above
• 4th revert: same as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Golan_Heights#Before_I_make_any_reverts.

Comments:
3 different users have taken issue with a number of things Drork repeatedly is introducing or removing from the article, yet Drork continually just re-reverts to his favored version. I had opened a 3-RR complaint a couple of days ago and withdrew it hoping that we could work more collegiality (see #User:Drork_reported_by_User:Nableezy_.28Result:_Withdrawn.29). Since then Drork has continued to attempt to force in or out info and sources depending on his personal feeling of them, going so far as to write that the Encyclopedia Britannica "claims" something happened and not even attribute what CAMERA says in response. nableezy - 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an harassment on behalf of a person who tries constantly to introduce his political views into articles, but this is the last comment you'll hear from me about the matter. Nableezy's aggression works. He will definitely have his way, because I don't have the tools to handle him. If you believe him - block me, just don't expect me to defend myself each time such an harassment occurs. DrorK (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's really not harassment, DrorK, and WP:3RR is pretty clear. The first "tools" you should seek must include reading this policy carefully, thereby avoiding repeated reports on this page, IMHO... Doc9871 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

After viewing the editing/correspondence history of both Nableezy and DrorK, I don't think Nableezy is totally unbiased/objective with regards to Israeli-Arab conflict articles. DrorK is working hard to improve articles by including valid viewpoints, he discusses topics in detail and with a serious good faith approach, but quite often his work is interrupted, not just by Nableezy, due to the controversial/political nature of the edited articles. DrorK may have been emotional sometimes, and that's not the right this to do, but that's due to the continued interruptions by what seems to me a clique of pro-Arab/anti-Israel editors (each of them is involved in more than one edit war on other heated articles), who seem to be aggressively pushing an agenda. DrorK was alone in the field againt this group, and that's why he was eventually reported on this page. Reporting DrorK was according to the book (WP:3RR), but he was aganist a group of edit warriors. That's my observation. My recommendation: don't block him, but he should willingly refrain from editing Israeli-Arab articles for a week. When he returns to these articles, the pro-Arab/anti-Israel group over there should be given some kind of a notice by the administrators (on the article talk page), telling them that outnumbering someone does not mean they can cancel/revert his properly cited work, and that some Israeli viewpoints must also be included, for balance sake. John Hyams (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Drork is warned that continued violation of 3RR may lead to more severe consequences. Since his last change was reverted and the article dispute has quiesced, no action will be taken this time. Consider trying to work this out at the issues talk page over at WP:IPCOLL. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SlamDiego reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: Protected)

Page: Austrian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SlamDiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

There are two separate disputed points related to the reverts.

• 1st revert: @18:24 18:24, 13 February 2010
• 2nd revert: @19:02 19:02, 13 February 2010
• 3rd revert: @19:49 19:49, 13 February 2010
• 4th revert: @19:56 19:56, 13 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: @18:38

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For my first related edit, I adjusted the text to remove the controversial "definitive" claim, so that it explicitly only described a view that was advanced by the specific related source. After this, I left a message on the user's talk page, directing him/her to the article's talk page, in hopes of avoiding multiple reverts. Even though the content of the text was no longer in dispute, it was still deleted numerous times with nothing further contributed to the article's talk page as of the time of this report. The reverts also center around a claim that has failed my attempts at verification. I've asked the editor multiple times to clarify that the edits are not an improper synthesis. My requests have basically been declined or, at best, only addressed in a roundabout and indirect manner. BigK HeX (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article protected three days. Both parties seem equally guilty in this edit war. Such detailed objections surely risk WP:Synthesis, and I note that nobody else seems to have given an opinion. Consider WP:3O, or anything that could bring in more people. Better yet, try to agree on a higher-level summary treatment that does not require battling out such minutia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that the four edits in question do not each cover both of the two issues in question. Rather, two concern one issue, and two concern the other. BigK HeX accused me of “synthesis” for removing a bald claim that treated Caplan's criticism as simple fact. BigK HeX insists that Caplan's claim appear twice in the article, both in the “Inter-War Period” section and in the “Criticism” section (I have never removed it from the latter section, nor removed it from one section when that was the only section in which it appeared), and accused me of edit warring for its removal, then escalated to removing the claim from McCulloch. Even before that escalation, I raised my concerns at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Austrian School. Rather than edit-warring, I've been trying to have the article conform to Misplaced Pages policy and gudelines, while dealing with an editor who does not disguise his intense hostility to the subject of the article. —SlamDiego_←T 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've agreed on the talk page that SlamDiego is conducting Original Research. If I recall correctly, I am the original author of the entry, back when one could create an entry without an user account. (If I wasn't the original author, I expanded it dramatically.) I do think if an editor wants to get into the details of the sources, he or she will be quickly bored. -- RLV 209.217.195.164 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 24h)

Page: User talk:Off2riorob (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For some reason, you chose not to notify me, as is required. You also forgot to leave evidence, as is required.

I was deleting my own comment, which is explicitly permitted. I don't know why you chose to delete part of my message, but misrepresenting my position by removing a fundamental part of what I said is disallowed, so I deleted the rest of it, as is my right.

Also, if you wish to pursue your accusation that I'm a sock, feel free, but it will be very unconstructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was still finishing the report and you clearly know about the report. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If he posted it on your talk page, and if you don't alter it in some way, far as I know it's up to you to decide whether it stays or goes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • He effectively did alter it, by deleting part of my material and keeping part, in a way which misrepresented my whole position. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Result - Blocked 24 hours by User:Elonka. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Insideairtran and User:173.2.4.184 reported by User:C.Fred (Result: Blocks, semi)

• Three-revert rule violation on

AirTran Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Insideairtran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.2.4.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 00:27, 14 February 2010 (edit summary: "Some people don't click on it they just read it. There may be several airports in the city such as New York, NY.")
2. 00:33, 14 February 2010 (edit summary: "No one cares about neatness it is about making it user friendly. no offense but your making it not user friendly")
3. 00:39, 14 February 2010 (edit summary: "AirTran Airways has a hub in Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport and General Mitchell International Airport. Not in Atlanta, Georgia.")
4. 01:32, 14 February 2010 (edit summary: "Why don't we forget like this ever happened and put it back to what it was for all history of AirTran Airways on[REDACTED] that know one had a problem with until you showed up.")
5. 01:53, 14 February 2010 (edit summary: "This format worked for everyone since the beginning of this page until you showed up.")

• Diff of warning: here and also a uw-3rr4 warning

Additionally, the following edits were made by 173.2.4.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is likely Insideairtran logged out:

1. revert on the AirTran Airways article
2. revert on the AirTran Airways article
3. removal and second removal of warnings from User talk:Insideairtran.

Because I have edited the article, I do not feel independent enough to block the user myself. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Additional comment: While not directly related to the 3RR situation, the IP has been used by indefinitely blocked user Airtran371 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which suggests that Insideairtran may also be a sockpuppet account. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Result - User:Insideairtran was blocked indef by another admin. User:173.2.4.184 is blocked 3 months as an IP sock of Airtran371. AirTran Airways has been semiprotected to keep down other sock IPs. These editors seem unwilling to accept Misplaced Pages's standard formatting for airline articles, and will pursue endless wars against the standard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jonathansamuel reported by User:Snowded (Result: 1 week)

Page: Martin Heidegger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jonathansamuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 13th Feb 14:24
• 2nd revert: 13th Feb 21:29
• 3rd revert: 13th Feb 21:53
• 4th revert: 13th Feb 23;41
• 5th revert: 14th Feb 05:08
• 6th revert: 14th Feb 05:19
• 7th revert: 14th Feb 06:59
• 8th revert: 14th Fen 07:04
• 9th revert: 14th Feb 07:34

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There has been a long running dispute about how to deal with Heidegger's Nazi associations (which are not disputed). The above named user seems to be a single purpose ID focused on this issue and has already had one block on the 8th of Feb for edit warring. As per the talk page reference under "attempt to resolve" above I put in place a compromise solution which has been supported by two other editors involved in the discussion with some minor modifications. Subsequently the above named user has reverted eight times including some crazy edit summaries about 3rr rules. I have made several attempts on the user's talk page, referencing 3rr rules, not reporting them when they hit 4 yesterday and even now suggesting a self-revert while this I prepared this report. However this is a disruptive editor, unprepared to learn anything about how to edit wikipedia. Aside from the edit war above, we have the constant creation of new sections on the talk page. --Snowded 07:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 1 week. I see nine reverts listed above, and am concerned that Jonathansamuel's relentless campaign risks driving regular editors away from the article. He does appear to be a single-purpose account. The illusion that he is sincerely participating on Talk is belied by the rapid-fire pace of his reverts. This article may turn into a mess if admins don't deal vigorously with POV-pushing. Note that Jonathansamuel was previously blocked 24 hours for the same thing on 8 February. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mtevfrog reported by User:jonathansamuel (Result: No action)

Page: Martin Heidegger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mtevfrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User mtevfrog has, in concert with two other editors, repeatedly reverted to the same content. He refuses to discuss his reasons on the Martin Heidegger Talk Page, in which he does not participate at all. He is attempting to remove a quotation from the Biography section which has been there for months and to which he had previously assented on his own Talk Page when a Good Samaritan editor KT Tries Again! suggested a compromise. The quote remained for months. Suddenly mtevfrog wants it changed.

I would like to take issue with a false statement by Snowded in the 3RR complaint above this one. Snowded has filed a 3RR complaint against me. Snowded states that he and mtevfrog did not dispute Heidegger's Nazi associations. In fact, they repeatedly disputed Heidegger's Nazi associations, insisting that they were "National Socialist" associations, and attempted to expunge the word "Nazi" from both the introduction and biographical sections of the Heidegger article. Anyone can observe their repeated attempts to expunge the word "Nazi" from the Biography and Introduction by examining both the History page for Martin Heidegger and in the case of Snowded on the Talk Page as well. Jonathansamuel (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I supported the use of Nazi in the lede and inserted a sentence to say that he had supported Hitler later in the article, please. --Snowded 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

After days of repeatedly opposing the use of the word "Nazi" in the Introduction and Biography, Snowded, recognizing he had a losing hand, backed off. Previously he insisted that Heidegger was a "National Socialist" and not a Nazi. Or at least, he contended that Heidegger, if indeed he was a Nazi, should instead be called a "National Socialist." I could never tell what his actual point was, but Snowded defiantly and repeatedly for days attempted to expunge "Nazi" from the Introduction and Biography and replace it with "National Socialist." Jonathansamuel (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The warning was issued one hour AFTER the last edit. In fact the first edit removes one placement of a quote that you had by then duplicated in a flurry of edit waring. The quote has not been removed, it has been moved elsewhere in the article so that is a misleading statement. --Snowded 08:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note the false distinction which Snowded makes between "moving" and "reverting." There is no distinction as far as violations of 3RR are concerned. As Good Samaritan editor KT Tries Again! pointed out both on the Martin Heidegger Talk Page and on user mtevfrog's own Talk Page, this dispute concerns the extent to which readers of the Biography section will be aware of Heidegger's considerable Nazi activities, particularly in 1933 and 1934. KT Tries Again! in a compromise to which mtevfrog assented, said that there should be one, but no more than one clear cut mention of Heidegger's Nazism in the Biography, and selected the quote from Heidegger's proclamation as the clear-cut mention. Suddenly, a few days ago, mtevfrog announced that he no longer accepts the proclamation quote in the Biography section and has started edit warring and violating 3RR. Jonathansamuel (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do NOT continue your dispute on this page, please use the Heidegger talk page for discussion. Poor Yorick (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• No obvious action taken, though one of the two are under a block. NJA (t/c) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaredkunz30 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action)

Page: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jaredkunz30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Uninvolved user reporting. This user appears to like to revert without discussing much, although they have not broken 3rr yet, they have been reverting quite a bit.— Dædαlus 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• No obvious action taken, though reported party under indef block for socking. NJA (t/c) 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep this open if the sock case comes back negative via CU(although unlikely, I would like an assessment of the edit warring here).— Dædαlus 08:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki alf reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: 163.1.147.64 blocked 24 hours)

Page: Kary Mullis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wiki alf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Wiki alf has recently been editing from several IPs, including 163.1.147.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 86.3.142.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) . The ongoing edit warring at Kary Mullis to remove the verifiable assertion that global warming is a matter of current scientific consensus is representative of the user's recent edits, including not just edit warring but personal attacks on other editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting repeated attempts to enter false information onto Misplaced Pages is not edit warring, it's reverting (sneaky) vandalism (vandalism as described in the section about sneaky vandalism in the policy on vandalism).163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor has informed you, you're not reverting vandalism. You're edit warring. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone can be wrong, including what you call an "uninvolved editor", I told them as much here, they haven't responded to that. I am reverting repeated attempts to enter false information onto Misplaced Pages (classed as vandalism as outlined in the "sneaky vandalism" section of the Vandalism policy).163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND, as you've been told. Your continued accusations, despite discussion, that this is "sneaky vandalism" is a huge failure to WP:AGF. I suggest this IP is blocked at least so that the editor is forced to log in. Verbal chat 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it one, no matter how many times you call it an orange. Keepcalmandcarryon also misrepresents the base of the issue - he says "remove the verifiable assertion that global warming is a matter of current scientific consensus" which is not the case, I am removing the fact that Mullis said anything about the human factor, you can put what ever you like about the consensus as long as you stop putting words in his mouth that he didn't say.163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From our policy on vandalism - sneaky vandalism - highlights added to show which two items of this policy both complainants are ignoring in their quest to stop me correcting their misinformation:

Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted.

Despite linking me to NOT:VAND many times saying "it's not vandalism" doesn't make what your doing not sneaky vandalism.163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• 6th revert: Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

163.1.147.64 (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note the IP is already editing from 86.3.142.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as shown by the edit to the blocked IP talk page. I suggest both are blocked for longer, and the 3RR vio is reset on the named account: Wiki Alf (talk · contribs). Thanks, Verbal chat 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Drork

Page: State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: different reverts, see below

• 1st revert: revert o fthis, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
• 2nd revert: revert of this, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
• 3rd revert: , revert of this
• 4th revert: same as above, labeled as a revert )”restore” in the edit summary
• 5th revert : , same as #1, labeled as a revert in the edit summary

DrorK (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut has violated 3RR here. It's ironic that John Hyams, who complained above about a tag team at Golan Heights, is participating in a tag team here. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hyams made a decision that the State of Palestine should not be mentioned in connection with the Palestine region article where the state it is located. To make his point, he repeatedly cut a block of text from the Palestine article and pasted it into the State of Palestine article where it simply duplicated existing links and content per Tiamat's edit summary:"this infomation is already included in this article" I pointed out that the edits were an unnecessary disruption here: harlan (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone once told me "Do you understand that 3RR is a bright-line rule?" I didn't agree with him then, I don't agree with him now, but I do believe people have to be consistent. DrorK (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you agree, the policy clearly says that 3RR is a bright-line. You crossed the line then and Tiamut crossed it now. So what's your point about consistency? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think his point is pretty clear... where is the confusion? He was reported for violation of the bright line rule, and so now in order to be consistent, he is reporting another user for the same violation. Breein1007 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since DrorK's message appears to be directed at me, its point doesn't seem clear at all. Despite DrorK's complaints, I've been a neutral party on this page. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's ironic Malik, but what exactly do you expect? This group of vehemently anti-Israel editors has been tag teaming in this fashion for months (if not years). Their behaviour has not only not been condemned, but it has actually been rewarded with actions being taken by admins against editors who are assaulted by their tag team edit wars. If tag teaming isn't going to be addressed as an issue and as a clear way that these editors have weaseled their way past WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR in general, then of course the "other side" is going to pick it up as a tactic too. Breein1007 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting duplicated content isn't the same thing as edit warring over a content dispute. harlan (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as far as WP:3RR is concerned, yes it is. Breein1007 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless the duplicated content is clearly vandalism, removing it is a revert for purposes of 3RR. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI to the acting admin, although I'm sure you will check this for yourself anyway, I just want to make sure you are aware of the fact that Tiamut has been blocked 4 times in the past for violations of 3RR/edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Further to the acting admin, please note that the reporting party only received a warning for a very similar recent offence. I suggest following the reporting party's plea for consistency. Zero 06:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:68.97.165.30 reported by Wildhartlivie (Result: )

Page: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.97.165.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:IP editor has routinely miscategorized articles on rampage/spree killers to mass murderers, even after having been approached and warned by other editors
Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring